Please Oppose Alcohol Tax Increase!

I can't imagine it is a good idea to take away the ability for localities to determine whether they are wet or dry.

I can't imagine it is a good idea to take away the ability for localities to determine whether they are wet or dry.

Charles, my impulse is to agree. However, consider this:

"However, prohibiting alcohol sales may actually reduce public safety. Research has found that dry counties have higher proportions of alcohol-related traffic crashes than do wet counties. A study in Kentucky suggested that residents of dry counties have to drive farther from their homes to consume alcohol, thus increasing impaired driving exposure.[1] A study of Arkansas noted that wet and dry counties are often adjacent and that alcohol beverage sales outlets are often located immediately across county or even state lines.[2] Other researchers have pointed to the same phenomenon. Winn and Giacopassi observed that residents of wet counties most likely have "shorter distances [to travel] between home and drinking establishments."[3] From their study, Schulte and colleagues concluded that in dry counties "individuals are driving farther under the influence of alcohol, thus increasing their exposure to crashes."

Certainly the mitigation of drunken driving and the enforcement of drunken driving laws falls under the purview of local and state government?

I wish I could remember who it was, but one of the Kentucky legislators was on NPR last week. He talked about putting a bill forward that would keep the taxes generated by alcohol sales in the "wet" areas. The best phrase that I heard him use was (and I'm paraphrasing, as it has been a week since I heard this "We don't want to infringe on anyone's beliefs, and giving dry areas revenue generated by alcohol would have to go against their beliefs as much as consuming alcohol".

While I don't believe in sin taxes (obviously based on the business I am in), but I think that putting sales tax on beer, wine and liquor is a fair way to collect the revenue they need. Raising the wholesale tax will raise the costs for the wholesaler, the retailer, and the consumer, with each price hike getting more and more at each level, whereas sales tax would only put a simple 6% onto the consumer, which would be a lower cost for the consumer in the end.

And, lest we ignore it, Indiana readers should know that there probably will be pressure in Indy to make the same tax increases in Hoosierland.

"However, prohibiting alcohol sales may actually reduce public safety. Research has found that dry counties have higher proportions of alcohol-related traffic crashes than do wet counties. . . Certainly the mitigation of drunken driving and the enforcement of drunken driving laws falls under the purview of local and state government?

At least from personal experience, there is some truth to that. During my undergraduate time at Centre in Boyle County, the county was dry (went "moist" my last year, but still no liquor stores). Students had to drive almost 40 minutes to buy alcohol. Not only did this lead to VERY large purchases on each trip, it led to two other common events:

(1) Student runs out of booze early in the evening but after having a few drinks. Student drives the hour plus round trip to get more booze, while intoxicated.

(2) Group of students travel to liquor store 2 counties over. Group (sometimes including the driver) participate in the 40oz challenge (finish a 40 oz. by the time you get back to campus) or similar events en route back to campus.

Yes, both of these are stupid decisions (and no, despite other not-so-smart decisions made in college, I never did (1) and never was the driver for (2) or with anyone driving for (2)), but a dry college town leads to these types of occurrences. If a student could walk just off campus to buy the booze, these problems become moot. The two above things happened much more frequently than one would expect.

My experience matches Brad's. When I was a student at Morehead, Rowan county was dry, and we had to drive all the way in to Mt. Sterling or Winchester for booze (we were underage, too! ). Our other alternative was a shack out in the Daniel Boone National Forest that we called the "bootlegger's", even though he was just illegally selling beer and half-pints of liquor, not making his own. I understand the "bootlegger" was the county sheriff's brother, and the cops would pretend to find him and "bust" him every six months or so....then he'd move his shack about 25 feet in one direction or another, and they'd pretend to not be able to find him for another few months.

Good story, Marsha. You went to Morehead? That's my area of the state (grew up in Ashland). I took a lot of high school related trips to Morehead for competitions and such. I was and am still a big fan of Morehead Public Radio (great bluegrass).

There used to be (maybe still there) a really good burger place just outside of Morehead. It was a filthy, ditry, greasy place that sat up on a hill on the road that connects to I-64. They put the burger on a platter and piled fries all over the burger. I can't remember the name. . .so good. . .

Being from Anderson County, I had some good friends who told stories of making decent cash running booze to students in Danville. Th signs in Lawrenceburg are great with 2 different stores claiming to be the last liquor store for 100 miles or something like that. I'm not a drinker so this tax doesn't mean much to be personally. I don't know if this is the answer but I do something got to be done soon.

Being from Anderson County, I had some good friends who told stories of making decent cash running booze to students in Danville. Th signs in Lawrenceburg are great with 2 different stores claiming to be the last liquor store for 100 miles or something like that. I'm not a drinker so this tax doesn't mean much to be personally. I don't know if this is the answer but I do something got to be done soon.

Re: the two Lawrenceburg stores - yes, very funny. They're right across the street from each other, and one store's property line may start inches before the other.

I preferred the store on the right coming from Danville.

I note that Paul is not the only one doing this, but the "out-of-context" quoting of dead people has got to stop. It's too easy to cut and paste some random quote you grab off of some random quote page, found through some Google search. It's lazy and adds little to your ethos (and to repeat, this is not directed merely at Paul). I'd rather read your sometimes poorly presented material than to see you pull some authoritarian power-play and defend claims through out-of-context quotes.

Since Im the only other person who quoted someone in this thread:

1. My quote was not out of context
2. It wasnt pulled from a random quote page (I searched thru Common Sense to find the specific quote I remembered but couldnt quote off the top of my head)
3. Why rewrite what someone has already said eloquently? (as an engineer, quoting Einstein may be an appeal to authority, but its a lot easier than deriving relativity all over again)

Here is a link to the story about the proposal to take alcohol revenue away from the dry counties:

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2009 ... 2/-1/TODAY

There used to be (maybe still there) a really good burger place just outside of Morehead. It was a filthy, ditry, greasy place that sat up on a hill on the road that connects to I-64. They put the burger on a platter and piled fries all over the burger. I can't remember the name. . .so good. . .

You would be speaking of the infamous Jimbo's Big Boy (my bride is from West Liberty, KY and a graduate of MSU). No affiliation with any legitimate Big Boy restaurants. "Outstanding burgers in questionable surroundings" would have been a great marketing slogan for them. They are closed now.

House panel backs tax hike on alcohol, tobacco

House panel backs tax hike on alcohol, tobacco

It still has to make it through the full House and Senate. Please write or call your local representatives to oppose this bill!

Is the full vote in the House today, Jeremy? I wonder if Gov. Beshear would veto it, since this bill is pretty significantly different from what he proposed ($.70 increase on tobacco, no additional alcohol taxes, etc.).